Sep
3
2010
Et Tu, Harlem?
It’s debatable what’s the most loyally Democratic district in the country, but NY’s 15th District would have to be in the running. The district, centered in Harlem, went 87% for Al Gore in 2000, 90% for John Kerry in 2004, and 93% for Barack Obama in 2008, is rated D+41 by Charlie Cook, and in various formats has been represented in Congress since 1971 by arch-liberal Charlie Rangel, who took the seat when his predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell jr., was enveloped by a decade-long series of scandals and ultimately booted from office by the House Democratic caucus after 26 years in office.
But in 2010, with the now scandal-marred Rangel facing a primary challenge from Powell’s grandson, Adam Clayton Powell IV (who he defeated previously in 1994), the NY Daily News finds even the Democratic voters in NY-15 dispirited by their choices, in an article helpfully titled (in the print edition) “Pick Rangel or Powell for Congress? Yuck!”:
“Everybody wishes there were better options,” said Pax Williams, a 33-year-old party promoter who plans to vote for Rangel because “you don’t want to get anyone worse.”
Rangel faces a House trial on 13 ethics charges, including tax evasion, and, as the Daily News reported Thursday, Powell took thousands in campaign cash – which he is returning – from an ex-con strip-club king.
“You don’t know what else is coming out of the bag with either of them,” said 73-year-old Leo Mobley of central Harlem….
“This is the problem in Harlem. They haven’t developed a generation of young leadership,” said one high-profile Rangel supporter.
That’s your energized base, Democrats.
Of course, I should point out here that there is a Republican running even in NY-15 (the GOP has fielded candidates in a record 432 of the nation’s 435 districts, for which the RNC and NRCC deserve some credit), former NY Jet and now pastor Rev. Michel Faulkner. RedState’s Moe Lane talked to Rev. Faulkner back in June.
Sep
3
2010
The jobs numbers don’t paint a good picture over all. Unemployment went back up slightly.
The number Mr. Obama will want us to pay attention to is private sector job growth. According to the government, private sector jobs went up and the growth of unemployment is attributed to those census workers leaving their jobs.
In fact, I’m already getting emails from Democrats saying I’m being disingenuous to focus on the overall picture.
But there’s a problem for them. When unemployment was going down, it did so because of the hiring of the 500,000 census workers and Mr. Obama and his band of merry socialists were cheering the numbers as a sign of good news.
Live by the temporary census worker jobs. Die by the temporary census worker jobs.
Unemployment went up.
Sep
2
2010
Latest Report On IPCC Another Insult As They Move Deck Chairs On The Titanic
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, September 2, 2010
It’s time to stop the lies, deceptions, denials and fantasy that is the world of political climate 
science known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Official climate science recently offered more insults, comparable to the whitewash investigations of Michael Mann, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang, with its latest ‘investigation’ of the IPCC.
They think a simple mea culpa will do the job and allow them to continue their corrupt and corrupting ways. It won’t and it can’t. Not even the full mea maxima culpa will solve the problem.
The most recent whitewash
The most recent whitewash began with UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon ordering a supposedly independent investigation. The Inter Academy Council (IAC), which combines 15 Science Academies, whatever that means, were assigned to produce a very limited report. “The review by the IAC will not involve any in-depth analysis of the report produced by the IPCC, or of any “vast amounts of data”.
It’s no surprise they prepared a very shallow report that identifies some errors and makes recommendations for the ongoing IPCC, but it is grossly inadequate. Why didn’t they talk to people who have raised questions about the process? Why didn’t they review the extensive literature on problems with the IPCC and the entire process? Why didn’t they recommend the removal from office of Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC? His activities are well documented and clearly show his integrity is completely compromised. The scientist whose false report on retreat of Himalayan glaciers was used by the IPCC worked for TERI of which Pachauri is the chairman. Why do they avoid the connections between CRU and IPCC?
The answer is given in the list of members of the IAC Board. It includes Ralph Cicerone, which though he may not have been involved in the Report, gives a flavor of the bias of the group. He has been very active in defense of the IPCC positions and in attacking those who dare question. Here is what he said about IPCC reports, “This is the most comprehensive report ever on climate change,” said atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the academy. They outline “why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and why we should have a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable.”
It is underlined by the fact the last IAC report was on alternate energy, the unworkable but favorite solution of IPCC proponents.
Inter Academy Council demonstrate their lack of understanding
The IAC clearly has no idea of the history of the political hijacking of climate science that used the UN, the WMO and culminated in the IPCC. They acknowledge some of the minor errors made, such as the article on Himalayas glaciers that they used to claim ice was melting and faster than any logical research allowed. They dismiss these items as misguided and fail to put them in the entire context of corruption that is the IPCC. They fail to make the connection between the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) people and the IPCC. They demonstrate their lack of understanding by advising the IPCC not to make predictions unless they had solid evidence. The United Nations climate panel should make predictions only when it has solid evidence and should avoid policy advocacy, scientists said in a report yesterday that called for thorough reform of the body.
The problem is the IPCC doesn’t make predictions. They stopped after their dismal failures in the first two Reports. They cleverly and deliberately called them projections from a range of scenarios. Of course, the mainstream media choose to report the worse case scenario with regard to temperature increase. All these scenarios are based on false assumptions and evidence that was given far too much credence. As Chairman of the IAC group, Princeton professor Harold Shapiro said one of the Reports, “contains many statements that were assigned high confidence but for which there is little evidence.”
It wasn’t just one of the Reports. Shapiro, and likely his group, fails to understand each Report builds on the previous one purportedly adding new material. In fact, the record shows they eliminated awkward material such as the graph showing the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP), or ignored well-documented research such as the Svensmark theory on the relationship between sunspots and global temperature.
After the IAC Report was released, Ban Ki Moon confirmed the incestuous nature of the investigation and gave an example of the gamesmanship he practices so well. He and Achem Steiner, head of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), said the report had done nothing to undermine the solid science in the IPCC Report. Of course not, they deliberately worked to that goal.
Nothing will change soon. Too many political, bureaucratic and academic careers are dependent on perpetuating the IPCC. Too many green industries have developed to take advantage of the billions governments have poured into alternate energies and other unworkable projects. Too many lobby groups are dependent on government funding, and use the IPCC message to shake funds out of a deceived and worried public.
In a recent article I recommended scrapping government weather agencies.
Maurice Strong used the UN to set up the IPCC and pursue his political goals
This is important because it was through them and their membership in the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that IPCC was created, funded and perverted. Maurice Strong used the UN to set up the IPCC and pursue his political goals. Its entire purpose was political and not scientific at all. The IAC were chosen not to realize this and couldn’t know because they didn’t do their research. To their credit they acknowledge the political leanings when they report that the IPCC is “at the interface between science and politics”, but it appears more a comment to quiet complaints than expose the obvious. They say the political actions of some senior IPCC members are harmful. “Straying into advocacy can only hurt IPCC’s credibility”. The reality is it has none and should be disbanded immediately along with the government weather agencies used for its creation.
Sep
2
2010
By Ann Coulter (Archive) · Thursday, September 2, 2010
The nonsense about President Obama being a Muslim has got to stop. I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist.
Leave aside Obama’s fanatical opposition to allowing Illinois hospitals to save the lives of babies with God-given souls inadvertently born alive during abortions. Also leave aside the fact that neither of his parents were Christians. And leave aside his current crop of “spiritual advisers,” which is a collection of Mother Earth worshippers, polytheists and other nonbelievers.
Now rest from all that “leaving aside.”
The only evidence for Obama’s Christianity is that he faithfully attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
Yes, the guy bellowing “God damn America!” is the one vouching for Obama’s Christianity. That’s like saying you got sober with the help of your A.A. sponsor Lindsay Lohan.
It is a fact that any non-retarded person (thank you, Rahm Emanuel!) sitting in the Rev. Wright’s church for 20 minutes, much less 20 years, does not believe in God. Even stepping inside Wright’s church for a moment to get out of the rain is borderline racist.
Going to Trinity United Church of Christ is even stronger evidence of nonbelief than Bill Clinton returning from Sunday services to receive oral sex from Monica Lewinsky. This isn’t mere sin — everybody sins (though some with more frequency and less remorse than others).
Attending Wright’s church is the conscious, calculated decision to immerse yourself in hate-filled demagoguery and call it “Christianity.”
But according to North Korean TV’s Chris Matthews, it is a provable, scientific fact that Obama is a Christian because he says so. “Everybody watching right now,” Matthews said to his several viewers last week, “gets credit for being of the religion you say you are. … We accept that in America. It’s called freedom of religion and respect for religion.”
That would make professions of religious belief, unlike all other self-professions, unchallengeable. Liberals say conservatives don’t believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?
Doesn’t anyone question the Christianity of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker? How about the Satanists claiming to be Christians who stand outside soldiers’ funerals with signs that say “God Hates Fags”?
And, for the record, the allegedly inviolate assertion of one’s own religious belief wasn’t so inviolate when it came to Ronald Reagan.
Tip O’Neill used to question President Reagan’s Christianity all the time, taunting the president for not attending church regularly. Matthews might remember that: He was working for O’Neill at the time.
In fact, parading to church in front of the TV cameras carrying a 10-pound Bible — like a certain serial adulterer, impeached president I could name — is strongly discouraged by the creator of the universe. (“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 6.1)
Some conservatives have cited Obama’s near complete refusal to go to church to suggest he’s not the “devout Christian” who “prays every day” as the White House claims.
But that’s not your proof, Christians. To the contrary, it’s Obama’s church attendance — back in Chicago — that proves he’s an atheist.
This was inadvertently admitted by Obama’s leading butt-boy, Richard Wolffe, on North Korean TV Monday night. Wolffe acknowledged that Wright’s liberation theology was not Christianity, but then forcefully distinguished Obama from the Rev. Wright –- i.e., Obama’s sole character witness for his alleged Christianity.
Of Glenn Beck’s denunciation of liberation theology as a false religion, Wolffe said: “Is he debating Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama? They’re two different people. If he wants to debate liberation theology with Wright, he’s got something to talk about. But liberation theology hasn’t been anything espoused by this president.”
But it was espoused in the only church Obama ever attended regularly — for 20 years, no less — was married in and had his daughters baptized in. The title of Obama’s autobiography came from the title of one of Wright’s sermons and snippets from Wright’s sermons have appeared in Obama’s work.
So the sole evidence of Obama’s supposed Christianity is his longtime pastor, who everyone admits is a racist nut.
No sentient human is required to take Obama’s profession of Christianity any more seriously than if it were coming from a 1980s blow-dried, money-grubbing televangelist with a mistress on the side.
All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.
Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren’t particularly good bluffers. That’s why Democrats babble incoherently whenever the subject of religion comes up. Liberals acting devout always looks like the love scenes between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis in “Top Gun”: awkward and unconvincing.
Former divinity student Al Gore famously botched a biblical verse, switching God’s instruction that we put heaven before earthly things (“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” Matthew 6:21) by saying we should make the Earth our treasure. (In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.)
Howard Dean told a reporter his favorite book of the New Testament was Job.
It took the Democrats’ born-again Christian Jimmy Carter three decades to announce, in 2005, that he didn’t think Jesus would approve of abortion (“unless the mother’s life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest,” etc. etc.).
There’s only one true Christian liberal in the country and that’s Mike Huckabee.
COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
Sep
2
2010
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, September 2, 2010
“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” –Samuel Adams
The Resurrection of First Principles
A few decades ago, my great aunt, a lady whom I admired, passed away. I was listed as a relative, though not a material beneficiary, of her small estate. An official notice went out to all of our living relatives announcing the date of her estate settlement, but it listed my name as the deceased instead of her name.
In the days that followed, I received many faux messages of condolence from my siblings and cousins, whom I assured, in a manner befitting Samuel Clemens, “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”
Likewise, a few decades ago, the economy was given last rites and the Republican Party with it, and Democrats elected Jimmy Carter to solve the nation’s problems at home and abroad. However, reports of the Republican demise were also greatly exaggerated.
Though Republicans appeared down for the count, constitutional conservatives, The Patriot heart and soul of our nation, never wavered in their devotion to Essential Liberty and Rule of Law established by our Constitution.
From our ranks arose a formidable spokesman for conservative principles, Ronald Reagan.
Fortunately, after four years of Carter and his congressional Democrats, Reagan’s clear articulation of the principles of economic and individual liberty brought the Republican Party back from the brink of extinction. His 1980 election and his leadership as president provided a timeless template for the restoration of our nation’s economic and moral prosperity.
In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan reassured the nation: “The economic ills we suffer … will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. … Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”
Ronald Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which reduced inflation to 3.2 percent by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth. Of course, behind all the right-minded policy was the most important element of the recovery: Ronald Reagan himself. He was a man of character and substance, and he restored American prestige and confidence. His re-election in 1984 was a landslide of historic proportions: He carried 49 states and collected 525 electoral votes, while his overmatched Democrat opponent, Walter Mondale, could carry only his home state of Minnesota and, of course, the District of Columbia.
Reagan’s genius was in his ability to communicate the timeless message of American Liberty with simplicity and purpose. Unfortunately, by the end of his eight years, establishment Republicans of the old-money dynastic variety had retaken control of the party and squandered the Reagan legacy in just a single term under George H.W. Bush.
With the election of the young, charismatic Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992, conservatives once again had to rebuild the foundation of Liberty. It didn’t take long. By Clinton’s first midterm election, they had successfully, for the first time in four decades, seated a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That majority managed, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, to fulfill almost all the conservative commitments outlined in its Contract with America. In doing so, they also pushed Clinton to the center, forcing him to balance budgets and reform welfare. Unfortunately, though, the Republican establishment ran elder statesman Bob Dole against Clinton in 1996, and like Bush(41) before him, Dole could not match wits with Clinton.
In the run-up to the 2000 election, conservatives had made progress toward restoring the Reagan legacy. Despite this, establishment Republicans still held sway within the Party, and by the end of Clinton’s reign, they had allocated more attention to his extra-marital debauchery than the agenda advanced by conservatives. In doing so, they lost their focus and almost lost the 2000 presidential election to Clinton’s lapdog, Albert Arnold Gore. Fortunately for our nation, Gore could never muster Clinton’s alpha-dog hubris and gravitas.
George W. Bush campaigned on some Reaganesque themes, but he entered office wounded by “dangling chads” in Florida. Bush’s resolve, however, was solidly forged on the morning of 11 September 2001. The devastating attack on our country that day killed some 3,000 Americans and sent our economy into a tailspin. Still, in the months that followed, President Bush exhibited a purpose and resolve unlike anything he had exhibited prior to that day. His great popularity lasted for the first two years of his presidency, during which he enjoyed the unwavering support of conservative Patriots across the nation.
Fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, though, and by the end of his first term, Bush(43) and like-minded establishment Republicans in the House and Senate had abandoned the conservative base to the extent that many of their domestic policies were indistinguishable from Democrat policies. Consequently, they were hamstrung by the midterm elections of Bush’s second term, and as the economy collapsed around them in 2008, Republicans ran a senior member of their establishment club, John McCain, against a young, charismatic unknown, Barack Hussein Obama.
The McCain v. Obama contest had all the excitement of the Dole v. Clinton match, even though Obama is a featherweight when compared to Clinton, with one exception — Obama’s resolve to implement socialist ideology. Given the added campaign benefit of a collapsing economy under an opposing party president, and the good sense to, in the words of his chief of staff, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Obama managed to dupe a majority of American voters.
Thus ends this painfully short history of the ups and downs of the Republican Party over the last three decades. Yet despite the significant reversals due to the malfeasance of establishment Republicans, conservatives have always held fast to the legacy of Liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders, understanding as did Samuel Adams, “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
Now, as it was by midterm of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, an angry electorate is awakening from its malaise, shaking off its feel-good stupor, and sensing that “hope and change” is a metaphor for rope and chains.
And now, as then, conservatives have been hard at work again, laying the foundation to repair all of the damage done by the establishment wing of the Republican Party. This time around, however, conservative Patriots are establishing an identity apart from being the “Republican base.” There are still Reagan Republicans in Congress — about 120 of them between the House and Senate. But the new conservative movement is now positioned to challenge establishment Republicans, who fake right in campaigns and then run left after election day, forsaking both their commitments to voters and their “sacred oath” to support and defend our Constitution.
Restoring HonorThe “Tea Party” movement has grown from its humble roots a couple of years ago to now include millions of Patriot conservatives across the nation, who, first and foremost, reject the notion of a “living constitution” and instead are firmly committed to the First Principles upon which our nation was founded.
In 1980, the conservative movement had Ronald Reagan to rally around, but in the absence of such a stalwart leader, the movement is rallying around the enduring principles of Liberty that Reagan advocated.
The Tea Party’s influence was abundantly clear across the nation this past week, from Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller’s defeat of establishment Republican incumbent Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Our objectives are aptly summed up in The Patriot Declaration and the less specific but more ambitious Contract from America endorsed by a strong consortium of conservative groups organized by former House Majority Leader and now FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey.
Predictably but regrettably, many establishment Republicans still don’t get it.
In a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post, Michael Gerson, erstwhile speechwriter for George W. Bush, condescends, “Tea party populism is … clearly incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs.”
I am not suggesting that Gerson is wrong, but that some Republican beliefs are not consistent with those that are the foundation of our Republic.
Gerson seems most upset about the fact that the majority of conservative Patriots now identified with the Tea Party movement are unafraid to list rebellion among their political options.
Gerson notes, “Far from reflecting the spirit of the Founders, the implied resort to political violence is an affectation — more foolish than frightening. But it is toxic for the GOP to be associated with the armed and juvenile.”
I’m not sure what “spirit of the Founders” Gerson consulted in séance, but the one who wrote our Declaration of Independence also wrote with steadfast determination, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
What’s more, the scribe who later penned our Constitution also noted, “[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
Like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, their Patriot descendants understand that the Second Amendment was and remains, in the words of Justice Joseph Story, “the palladium of liberties of a republic.”
I suppose the preceding is an unsettling notion for Beltway bow-tie establishment Republicans, just as it should be for every Leftist disciple of Obama and the Socialist Bourgeoisie nationwide. Get over it.
The Tea Party movement, if it can maintain its identity as a set of principles rather than become an institution, may well succeed in reversing much of the insult done against our Constitution during the last century. However, this will take more than one election cycle, and it will take leadership as bold as that of Ronald Reagan.
In the meantime, for those establishment Republicans who have yet to repent of their ways and join our ranks, those who are as yet unwilling to stand in the gap between Liberty and Obama’s objective to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” I offer these words from Sam Adams: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Sep
2
2010
Friends,
Please pass this along.
Laus Deo
Regards
KAFIR
The Unbeliever
Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare
Don’t believe Democrats who promise to fix the bill once they’re re-elected
By HAL SCHERZ
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don’t like ObamaCare, so we’ll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.
For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress.
To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a “Dear Patient” letter in our waiting rooms.
The letter states in unambiguous language what the new law means:
“Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best
Our doctor’s letter points out that, in addition to “badly exacerbating the current doctor shortage,” ObamaCare will bring “major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall-off in the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months or sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery.”
We cite the brute facts of ObamaCare’s passage:
“Despite countless protests by doctors and overwhelming public opposition—up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill—the current party in control of Congress pushed this bill through with legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any ‘repeal and replace’ efforts. This doctor’s office is non-partisan—always has been, always will be. But the fact is that every Republican voted against this bad bill while the Democratic Party leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation.”
Then we address the Democrats’ evasive campaign maneuver:
“In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing this bill.”
The letter’s final lines are the most important:
“Please remember when you vote this November that unless the Democratic Party receives a strong negative message about this power grab our health care system will never be fixed and the doctor patient relationship will be ruined forever.”
This message is going out to an electorate that is already frustrated over what they see happening to health care. Missouri voters rejected ObamaCare overwhelmingly in August, voting by a margin of 71%-29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has assessed that ObamaCare is “a disaster” for Democrats. And around the country many little-noticed primaries have reflected voter rage—including the Republican primary victory of surgeon, political newcomer, and advocate of repeal Daniel Benishek in Michigan’s first district.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s damage-control efforts have fallen flat. The latest round of pro-ObamaCare television spots targeting the elderly and starring veteran actor Andy Griffith have not only failed to move the polling numbers. They have caused five U.S. Senators to ask for an investigation of the ads as a violation of federal laws barring the use of tax dollars ($750,000) for campaign purposes.
America’s doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. And we intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.
Dr. Scherz, a pediatric urological surgeon at Georgia Urology and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, serves on the faculty of Emory University Medical School and is president and cofounder of Docs4PatientCare.
Sep
2
2010
Friends,
I TOTALLY AGREE!
Laus Deo
Regards
KAFIR
The Unbeliever
Great grandfathers watched as their friends died in the 1ST WORLD WAR
\
My father watched as his friends died in WW II.
SOME WATCHED AS THEIR FRIENDS DIED IN KOREA.
I watched as friends died in Vietnam
AND WE’RE ARE ALL WATCHING OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN DIE IN THE TWO WARS BEING FOUGHT AS THIS MESSAGE MAKES ITS WAY AROUND THE NET.
None of them died for the Mexican Flag. Everyone died for the American flag.
Texas high school students raised a Mexican flag on a school flag pole, other students took it down. Guess who was expelled…the students who took it down.
California high school students were sent home on Cinco de Mayo, because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them.
Enough is enough.
This message needs to be viewed by every American; and every American needs to stand up for America.
We’ve bent over to appease the America-haters long enough. I’m taking a stand.
I’m standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the American flag.
If you agree, stand up with me. If you disagree, please let me know. I will gladly remove you from my e-mail list.
And shame on anyone who tries to make this message racist.
AMERICANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS!
Let me make this clear! THIS IS MY COUNTRY!
This statement DOES NOT mean I’m against immigration!
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:
1. Get a sponsor!
2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!
3. Live by OUR rules!
4. Get a job!
5. Pay YOUR Taxes!
6. No Social Security until you have earned it and paid for it !
7. NOW find a place to lay your head!
If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
We’ve gone so far the other way . . . bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
Only AMERICANS seems to care when American Citizens are being offended!
WAKE UP America ! ! !
If you do not Pass this on, may your fingers cramp!
============================
Sep
1
2010
By Jonah Goldberg (Archive) · Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Predictably, the “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall last Saturday has evoked a lot of consternation.
Because the rally explicitly and studiously avoided trumpeting a political agenda, it freed up a lot of people to fill in the blanks themselves. For instance, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post insists it was all a con: “As high-minded as that may sound, the real point of stressing the rally’s apolitical goals was political.” By leaving the listener to infer an anti-Obama agenda from all of this talk of lost honor, host Glenn Beck was practicing “classic political demagoguery.”
So let me get this straight: If Beck had done the opposite, and invited hundreds of thousands of anti-Obama signs, and carved up Obama like a turkey dinner, folks like Sargent would think the rally was less demagogic? Hmmm.
Obviously, Sargent’s not entirely wrong about the rally’s political resonance. Of course it was a conservative-and-libertarian-tinged event. Of course it would have been impossible without the right-leaning tea party movement. Of course the fact that Beck and Sarah Palin managed to attract so many people to the Mall is not a ringing endorsement of the Democrats.
But the partisan implications of the rally aren’t that interesting. Nor, really, is the argument that the relentless celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. at the National Mall amounted to some grave insult to his memory.
One striking feature of Saturday’s rally was how deeply religious and ecumenical it was. It seems like just yesterday that everyone was talking about how Christian evangelicals were too bigoted to vote for upright and uptight Mormon Mitt Romney. Yet Christian activists saw no problem cheering for — and praying with — the equally Mormon but far less uptight Beck, who asked citizens to go to “your churches, synagogues and mosques!”
The inclusiveness transcended mere religion. While the crowd was preponderantly white, the message was racially universalistic. That was evident not just on the stage, but in the crowd as well. When Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie asked a couple whether as “African-Americans” they felt comfortable in such a white audience, the woman responded emphatically but good-naturedly: “First of all, I’m not African, I am an American … a black American.” She went on to explain how “these people” — i.e., the white folks cheering her on — “are my family.”
Peter Viereck, a largely forgotten conservative intellectual, would have found this familiar. During the 1950s, he noted that anti-Communism — whatever its other faults and excesses — had the remarkable effect of lessoning inter-ethnic tensions among like-minded activists. Anti-Communist blacks were celebrated and welcomed by anti-Communist whites. Anti-Communist immigrants and Jews were welcomed to the supposedly nativist and anti-Semitic movement. Viereck, who disliked the phenomenon (he said it was akin to xenophobia practiced by a “xeno”), dubbed it “transtolerance.”
I’m more upbeat about the dynamic. Of late there’s been a lot of debate, largely in the context of the so-called ground zero mosque, about the evils of American identity. Will Wilkinson, an influential liberal-libertarian writer, sees opposition to the mosque as an entirely reprehensible expression of the “cult of American identity” and the “zaniness of right identity politics.” The upshot of Wilkinson’s argument is that it’s absolutely preposterous for the American people to see themselves as a people.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently argued that there are “two Americas.” The first America is wholly secular, “where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.” The other America is culturally defined: “This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well.”
Douthat makes some good points, but he downplays the relationship between what are really the two faces of one America. It is the American conception of itself as a people that keeps it loyal to the Constitution. The Constitution, absent our cultural fidelity to it, might as well be the rules for a role-playing game.
I confess, if Beck wasn’t a libertarian, I would find his populism worrisome. But his message, flaws and excesses notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage defines us as a people, regardless of race, religion or creed. Is that so insulting to Martin Luther King Jr.’s memory?
(C) 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Aug
31
2010
Friends and Patriots,
I will be posting articles from this new news site on the NEWS page of our blog. If you wish to go to the site http://www.theblaze.com you can sign up for email, this site promises to bring us the news that is overlooked by the lying lame street media.
A Message From Glenn
If you are like me, watching the news or reading the paper can be an exercise in exasperation. It’s so hard to find a place that helps me make sense of the world I see.
Too many important stories are overlooked. And too many times we see mainstream media outlets distorting facts to fit rigid agendas. Not that you’ve ever heard me complain about the media before. Okay, maybe once or twice.
But there comes a time when you have to stop complaining and do something. And so we decided to hire some actual journalists to launch a new website — The Blaze. And we moved fast. We built the team and the site in just two months.
We want this to be a place where you can find breaking news, original reporting, insightful opinions and engaging videos about the stories that matter most.
The Blaze will be about current news — and more. It’s not just politics and policy. It’s looking for insight wherever we find it. We’ll examine our culture, deal with matters of faith and family, and we won’t be afraid of a history lesson.
The image of flame is a powerful. It has long stood for a burning truth. A truth that is not consumed. The Blaze will pursue truth. Of course we will make mistakes. Honest mistakes. And we’ll be quick with corrections. We intend to earn your trust and keep it day in and day out with hard work and a lot of transparency.
And don’t expect everything to be deadly serious. Boring is bad. We intend to have plenty of fun.
We’ve put together a solid team of writers and reporters. I intend to keep them busy by sending a zillion story ideas at all hours.
We’re also counting on you. Your comments. Your feedback. Your tips! You will help us build and shape The Blaze.
Thank you in advance.
Glenn Beck
Aug
30
2010
Elitism is the attitude or belief that some individuals, by virtue of wealth, intellect, or training are superior to others
By Bob Shoup Monday, August 30, 2010
Lately it seems as if conservatives have been barraged by insults. Think that climate change may be natural, you are labeled a denier. Concerned about the record-breaking deficit, you are a tea bagger or a statist. Don’t want a mosque built near the site Islamic terrorists killed over 3000 Americans, you are a racist. Think that the current administration is taking the country too far to the left, there’s that racist charge again.
As opposed to focusing on what is being said, let’s look at who are saying these things. These comments come from a select group of climate scientists, or mainstream media commentators and politicians. What each of these groups have in common is that they seem to think of themselves as elite.
Elitism is the attitude or belief that some individuals, by virtue of wealth, intellect, or training are superior to others. Elitists can be found everywhere but are most commonly seen in upper management, Hollywood, academia, the media, and the halls of government. The principal difference between an elitist and an expert is that experts are recognized by others for their skill or training whereas elitists see themselves as superior.
Elitists are typically agenda driven; they see themselves as fighting for a noble cause. As such, elitists tend to view themselves as individuals who are benevolently working for the good of mankind (or for some elitist groups, womankind).
This self-recognition and nobility of cause gives elitists a smug self assurance in their ideas. So much so that they believe that their opinions and ideas carry as much or more significance than hard evidence. This is best illustrated by how the elitists of climate science advanced the idea of anthropogenic global warming (for a thorough history and understanding of the global warming movement, see the many excellent articles by climatologist and environmental scientist Dr. Tim Ball). These climate elitists hold a belief that human activity caused a warming of the climate. As elitists, their belief is more significant than the large amount of data that conflicted with that belief. So, they ignored, or altered the data as needed to fit their belief.
Once the considerable intellect of the elitist has rendered an opinion or an interpretation, that opinion or interpretation must be right. As such, elitists tend to remain inflexible to new information or data. They are afraid that should they change their opinion, then they would have revealed that they are not infallible, which in turn would put their status as an elite at risk. For an elitist it is better to be always right than possibly wrong.
Cerebral narcissism and smug self assurance
The cerebral narcissism and smug self assurance that are the hallmarks of elitism causes elitists to look upon those not considered elite with disdain. This isolates elitists into small groups of like-thinking members. This self-imposed isolation, results in a loss of diversity in their thinking. Just as a lack of diversity in isolated gene pools results in genetic deformities, the lack of diversity of thought in isolated intellectual thought pools results in deformed ideas. This form of group think is nothing more than intellectual inbreeding.
The sense of nobility that elitists feel for themselves combined with the disdain they have for the intellectually inferior leads those individuals or groups that consider themselves to be elite to grant themselves extra privileges. Like nobility of old, they are above their proclamations. So when government elites tell you that paying taxes is patriotic, they exclude themselves from that obligation. When environmental elitists tell you to change your lifestyle, they do not need to do so themselves. Their do as I say not as I do mentality is one of the privileges that they see themselves as entitled to. In reality, it makes them hypocrites.
Elitists see themselves as intellectual nobility looking out for the welfare of the peasant class. However, unlike the peasant class of old, today’s ‘peasants’ are generally well-educated. Moreover, the ascendancy of the internet has allowed the masses to avail themselves of enough information to form their own opinions. If the masses are able to make well informed and intelligent decisions themselves, the elitists are no longer needed.
As the elitists find themselves teetering on the precipice of irrelevancy, they have become defensive. Interestingly, the nature of that defense is similar for all elitist groups, whether they are climate scientists, journoListers, politicians, or mosqueteers.
Since elitist positions are generally not based on analysis and interpretation of data, elitists cannot rely on logic or science to argue their point.. They rely instead in a progressive pattern when confronting challenges. Each step of the progression moves elitists farther and farther away from the professionalism that they believe they adhere to.
Patronize
The first line of defense that elitists use when the masses do not accept their opinions or positions is to assume that we were simply not smart enough to understand them. Therefore, they hope to win us over by explaining their position or opinion better. In other words, they patronize us.
Consensus
The second line of defense for elitists is to appeal to you to accept their brilliance. As part of that defense, elitists typically call on consensus. We, a group of really smart people have agreed on this opinion. Since you are not smart enough to grasp the issue, you should trust us. After all, we are looking out for you.
ad hominem attacks
The third line of defense is to engage in ad hominem attacks. Those who challenge elitists are stupid, or racist, or deniers. Interestingly, these ad hominem attacks are not necessarily intended to be mean spirited. They simply reflect the disdain that elitists have for others. Since you failed to accept their viewpoint after they patiently tried to explain it and pointed out that there is a consensus, then it is your thinking that must be flawed. Since they will not inter-mix with the “peasant class”, it is inconceivable to the elitist that you may actually have a valid and informed opinion.
That said, by attacking the character or reputation of those individuals who dare to pose a challenge, elitists do two things. First they weaken the credibility of their challengers, implying that their challengers are not worthy of your trust. Secondly, by posing a threat to peoples credibility, they hope to silence those who would challenge them, no matter how valid the challenge. The latest bizarre twist in ad hominem attacks is to accuse your challengers of being elitist.
If appeals to our reason and ad hominem attacks fail to dissuade those who challenge elitists, then the next line of defense is to threaten the challengers. These threats can be include firing, boycotts, calls for investigations (Here and here) and death threats. Unfortunately these threatening actions are often effective in suppressing challenges. They also show how incredibly weak and insecure elitists really are.
The final line of defense is to call for civil disobedience. The most infamous example of elitists calling for civil disobedience is that of Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen. Both have called on people to engage in civil disobedience in their fight against global warming . At a number of Townhall meetings and Tea Party rallies, participants have been assaulted by thugs. Although these thugs are not elitists, they are tools used by elitists to discourage these groups. So in addition to being weak and insecure, most elitists, when unable to stand up to challengers, resort to bullying by proxy.
We can see that elitists are not experts, they are simply individuals or groups of individuals who see themselves as superior. That superiority breeds disdain for those not a member of the elite group. That in turn results in intellectual inbreeding; a process that leads to defects in logic and rationale. When that superiority is challenged, they respond in a generally well defined pattern of progressively less professional steps. This behavior betrays them for what they actually are, weak and insecure. A fact they hide not with intelligence or intellectual prowess but by arrogance. “The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance” (Albert Einstein).
So here is the good news. This barrage of insults and ad hominem attacks has revealed these elitists to be nothing more than empty suits; legends in their own mind, and arrogant legends at that. Since their viewpoints cannot stand the test of logic, then their viewpoints need not be respected. Nor do we need to fear their ad hominem attacks. When a climate scientist calls me a denier, or a columnist from the New York Times or the Washington Post calls me a racist, I can wear the terms with pride. Not because I am a denier or a racist, but because I know that for those individuals, calling me a name is a sign of how desperate they are. It is a sign that they are one step closer to becoming irrelevant.